Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Tsuk,

please read the link I am about to provide you. We need to convert as many Communists (AKEL Supporters) as is possible for the sake of our Children and for the RoC's future!

Communism has been a disaster and has bought disaster to our island. They were even responsible (ultimately) for the 1974 invasion.

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/socialistmyth.html

[tsukoui]

Paphitis, leaving aside that your link is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever read, I would even go so far as to call it drivel, I'll address the main point as far as I can see, namely the calculation problem. This is something that deserves a proper study and there are numerous well written articles (as opposed to your one) that deal with it from both the left and the right. It is the right's most coherent argument against the Soviet Model and was first put forward by Hayek. There are two strands to the argument, the weak one and the strong one. Your article focuses on the weak one, the idea that it is too computationally intensive to solve the equations necessary for managing an economy. I recommend reading the work of Paul Cockshott to see that computationally the problem is perfectly solvable with todays computers. The strong argument is more interesting and is to do with the idea that the market acts as a kind of democracy, albeit a biased one, whereby what is produced is the result of everyone voting, i.e. spending money, on the products that they want. To my mind, failing to address this problem was the reason for the economic failure of the Soviet Union. In recent years there has been some suggestion that some form of peer-to-peer networking could address this, but the ideas have yet to be fleshed out. In other words it is an open problem, and this is why any attempt to impose communism at this stage in Cyprus would be premature. AKEL know this, which is why they are playing a purely caretaker role at present. There's a lot more I could add on the subject of communism, but let us see what you make of Paul Cockshott's work first.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis, leaving aside that your link is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever read, I would even go so far as to call it drivel, I'll address the main point as far as I can see, namely the calculation problem. This is something that deserves a proper study and there are numerous well written articles (as opposed to your one) that deal with it from both the left and the right. It is the right's most coherent argument against the Soviet Model and was first put forward by Hayek. There are two strands to the argument, the weak one and the strong one. Your article focuses on the weak one, the idea that it is too computationally intensive to solve the equations necessary for managing an economy. I recommend reading the work of Paul Cockshott to see that computationally the problem is perfectly solvable with todays computers. The strong argument is more interesting and is to do with the idea that the market acts as a kind of democracy, albeit a biased one, whereby what is produced is the result of everyone voting, i.e. spending money, on the products that they want. To my mind, failing to address this problem was the reason for the economic failure of the Soviet Union. In recent years there has been some suggestion that some form of peer-to-peer networking could address this, but the ideas have yet to be fleshed out. In other words it is an open problem, and this is why any attempt to impose communism at this stage in Cyprus would be premature. AKEL know this, which is why they are playing a purely caretaker role at present. There's a lot more I could add on the subject of communism, but let us see what you make of Paul Cockshott's work first.

I will make it easy for you.

I want you to address each of these points seperately:

Communism's main failure in practice comes from the failure of a centralized economy to function. Though socialists often attribute it to problems elsewhere, the simple reason behind this occurrence is the mathematic and physical impossibility of managing an economy from a centralized form. One of communism's main ideals is complete control over industries. In order to efficiently plan industries, communism must simultaneously account for all industries (there are billions of different industries) and their relationship with each other at the same time. Within each specific industry certain goods are internally consumed to produce more of a certain product. An example of this occurrence, which is true in any economic system, is the market for oil. For instance, to drill more oil requires the use of gasoline for transportation, generators, machinery operation, refinery operation, and a dozen other things. Therefore to get more gasoline and drill more oil wells, some existing gasoline must be used up in the process, or internally consumed. This occurrence exists in every industry to varying extents resulting in a massive structure of interlining and constantly changing relationships between all industries. Further, if production in one industry changes, this change effects all other industries in one way or another due to inter linking relationships and internal consumption. On top of these complex internal relations exists a tendency of change relating to substitute and complementary goods effecting related markets and further entangling the complex relationship between industries of a large economy.

Communism strives for the complete equality of all incomes, and therefore, everything. As income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding. In capitalist systems, he who chooses not to work suffers the consequences while he who works receives the incentives, money, which he is working for. Human nature includes a desire to "do better" and, therefore, make more money or advance in a job. In an attempt to make more money, people are driven naturally work harder and longer, seek further education for themselves, and develop skills which distinguish them as rare talents among that labor which is available as supply. Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle. People begin to work less or not work at all because there is no longer the incentive of making more money or advancing in job. When there are no workers, production drops to nothing. It will then be true that all incomes are equal but this equal income will be zero.

and

Communism's original and most basic principles deal with the rich owners and the workers or proletariats. Unfortunately for Marx's cause, a third order was coming to power and it would prove to be the larger and more powerful than either the proletariat or the capitalist aristocracy. This third middle grounds was completely misjudged by Marx and incorrectly lumped in with the bourgeois rich. Marx's entire theory was based on class struggle and a difference in these classes forcing a revolution to be followed by an "equality" of all classes (the irony: Marx and Engels were factory owners when they published the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital!). The petit-bourgeois, Marx's term for the middle class, was only to further divide the upper and working classes by an irreconcilable rift. In reality, the opposite happened and the middle class actually bridged any "rift," that is to say if there was one in the first place! The arrival of the middle class practically ruins any chance for this revolution as well as any need for it. Further it presents a variable unaccounted for simply because it fits incorrectly into the communist and socialist theory. Strange that people put faith in a theory that completely misjudges the majority of the population!

And let's face it Tsuk. The USSR failed because it had no economy, at least for the masses that is. No one had any money to vote at all on any products they wanted or even basic essentials. So everyone was indeed equal alright. I would say most were equally poor and the country could not progressed because why work hard when you only fork for a willing?

In the end, they had a revolution against communism and the USSR fell apart! Disintegrated.

People have needs and Communism failed the people miserably!

[tsukoui]

Paphitis, leaving aside that your link is one of the most poorly written articles I have ever read, I would even go so far as to call it drivel, I'll address the main point as far as I can see, namely the calculation problem. This is something that deserves a proper study and there are numerous well written articles (as opposed to your one) that deal with it from both the left and the right. It is the right's most coherent argument against the Soviet Model and was first put forward by Hayek. There are two strands to the argument, the weak one and the strong one. Your article focuses on the weak one, the idea that it is too computationally intensive to solve the equations necessary for managing an economy. I recommend reading the work of Paul Cockshott to see that computationally the problem is perfectly solvable with todays computers. The strong argument is more interesting and is to do with the idea that the market acts as a kind of democracy, albeit a biased one, whereby what is produced is the result of everyone voting, i.e. spending money, on the products that they want. To my mind, failing to address this problem was the reason for the economic failure of the Soviet Union. In recent years there has been some suggestion that some form of peer-to-peer networking could address this, but the ideas have yet to be fleshed out. In other words it is an open problem, and this is why any attempt to impose communism at this stage in Cyprus would be premature. AKEL know this, which is why they are playing a purely caretaker role at present. There's a lot more I could add on the subject of communism, but let us see what you make of Paul Cockshott's work first.

I will make it easy for you.

I want you to address each of these points seperately:

Communism's main failure in practice comes from the failure of a centralized economy to function. Though socialists often attribute it to problems elsewhere, the simple reason behind this occurrence is the mathematic and physical impossibility of managing an economy from a centralized form. One of communism's main ideals is complete control over industries. In order to efficiently plan industries, communism must simultaneously account for all industries (there are billions of different industries) and their relationship with each other at the same time. Within each specific industry certain goods are internally consumed to produce more of a certain product. An example of this occurrence, which is true in any economic system, is the market for oil. For instance, to drill more oil requires the use of gasoline for transportation, generators, machinery operation, refinery operation, and a dozen other things. Therefore to get more gasoline and drill more oil wells, some existing gasoline must be used up in the process, or internally consumed. This occurrence exists in every industry to varying extents resulting in a massive structure of interlining and constantly changing relationships between all industries. Further, if production in one industry changes, this change effects all other industries in one way or another due to inter linking relationships and internal consumption. On top of these complex internal relations exists a tendency of change relating to substitute and complementary goods effecting related markets and further entangling the complex relationship between industries of a large economy.

This I have addressed in my original reply, the article actually mentions Leontif's input output model, that is the only thing I have left out.

Communism strives for the complete equality of all incomes, and therefore, everything. As income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding. In capitalist systems, he who chooses not to work suffers the consequences while he who works receives the incentives, money, which he is working for. Human nature includes a desire to "do better" and, therefore, make more money or advance in a job. In an attempt to make more money, people are driven naturally work harder and longer, seek further education for themselves, and develop skills which distinguish them as rare talents among that labor which is available as supply. Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle. People begin to work less or not work at all because there is no longer the incentive of making more money or advancing in job. When there are no workers, production drops to nothing. It will then be true that all incomes are equal but this equal income will be zero.

This is why I say it is drivel, Communism does not "strive for the complete equality of all incomes", it is a state in which each produces according to their capacity and each receives according to their needs.

and

Communism's original and most basic principles deal with the rich owners and the workers or proletariats. Unfortunately for Marx's cause, a third order was coming to power and it would prove to be the larger and more powerful than either the proletariat or the capitalist aristocracy. This third middle grounds was completely misjudged by Marx and incorrectly lumped in with the bourgeois rich. Marx's entire theory was based on class struggle and a difference in these classes forcing a revolution to be followed by an "equality" of all classes (the irony: Marx and Engels were factory owners when they published the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital!). The petit-bourgeois, Marx's term for the middle class, was only to further divide the upper and working classes by an irreconcilable rift. In reality, the opposite happened and the middle class actually bridged any "rift," that is to say if there was one in the first place! The arrival of the middle class practically ruins any chance for this revolution as well as any need for it. Further it presents a variable unaccounted for simply because it fits incorrectly into the communist and socialist theory. Strange that people put faith in a theory that completely misjudges the majority of the population!

[/quote]

Again, more drivel, if you earn 10,000 euros a year you are in the top 15% of the world's population. The majority of the world's population is working class.

[Paphitis]

It's not drivel at all. All are very valid arguments it's just you that is in denial and choose to bury your head in the sand.

Look at Christoofias' management of the economy, that is another example of a country bought to its knees. he could have introduced austerity a good 2 or 3 years earlier but he chose to wait it out and that resulted in more severe Austerity to the detriment of the working class which he should have been trying very hard to protect.

I'm not even going to start on AKEL's anti American bullshit throughout the 60s and 70s that bought the Junta into Cyprus and ultimately the Turkish invasion.

And in case you missed it:

And let's face it Tsuk. The USSR failed because it had no economy, at least for the masses that is. No one had any money to vote at all on any products they wanted or even basic essentials. So everyone was indeed equal alright. I would say most were equally poor and the country could not progress because why work hard when you only work for a living?

In the end, they had a revolution against communism and the USSR fell apart! Disintegrated.

People have needs and Communism failed the people miserably!

Let me ask you this. Who do you look up to? The US, Canada, the EU, Australia, OR North Korea, China, Cuba et al

Is it a difficult choice for you? Do we go for free market or Communism?

[Get Real!]

You must have a lot of time on your hands because you need not convince anyone here that they shouldn’t opt for communism!

[Paphitis]

:shock: You must have a lot of time on your hands because you need not convince anyone here that they shouldn’t opt for communism!

Dunno! I like to think Cyprus is a modern country. Only Western Country I know where 35% of the population vote Communists. everywhere else they are scrounging to get 1%

[Tim Drayton]

I fully agree that every attempt at "Communism" has so far ended in disaster, and I speak as somebody who witnessed the horrors of marshal-law Poland as a student in Warsaw in 1983-1984. However, I still prefer to believe that a better society is possible, whether you term it "Communism" or something else. I find the Rojava experiment in a decentralised form of socialism with the maximum possible amount of local autonomy interesting. I live in hope that one day humanity will find a way of creating a just society. I certainly don't see much justice in neo-liberal globalised capitalism under which a handful of people are increasingly dominating the world.

[Oceanside50]

Kibbutzim before and after Israel was established seems to have been a success. The Jews have always been a communal people. It may be that Marx thought that taking the communal trait to a bigger arena might be the answer to progress, but unfortunately nature doesn't always have that type of progression. Peoples wants and needs become too diversified in a large arena, although with the Internet,multiculturalism and mass communication communolism might have a chance in the future...

[erolz66]

I fully agree that every attempt at "Communism" has so far ended in disaster, and I speak as somebody who witnessed the horrors of marshal-law Poland as a student in Warsaw in 1983-1984. However, I still prefer to believe that a better society is possible, whether you term it "Communism" or something else. I find the Rojava experiment in a decentralised form of socialism with the maximum possible amount of local autonomy interesting. I live in hope that one day humanity will find a way of creating a just society. I certainly don't see much justice in neo-liberal globalised capitalism under which a handful of people are increasingly dominating the world.

Well said.

I think there is some evidence that actually China today is abandoning dogma and is actually doing some potentially interesting stuff based on an administrative 'class' that gets its legitimacy from its people not through 'democracy' but simply through 'what works' in terms of delivering better lives for those that live there. A kind of 'marketplace' of 'government', where what works is replicated and those who design and implement what works, promoted and move up and through the administrative class and what fails is rejected. It is very early days but I think there is a real chance that China will be at the forefront of finding a 'new way' that actually is better than neo-liberal globalised capitalism we have today.